Re: Stupid GM Features

[dlou@ece.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou)]

Hmmm, I have a bit of experience with trucks.  Let me guess
and perhaps Al can confirm this....

I'm guessing that the engine in question is the GM 2.8l


>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:04:46 -0500
>From: "Simpson, Jr, Joe B." <jbs@rti.org>
>Subject: RE: Stupid GM Features (was GM hates Italian Cars)
>
>"Al Marrin" <amarrin@ufl.edu> said:
>
>>Here's another "feature" of GM cars.  A friend owns a GMC Jimmy.
>Couple years back, 
>>he blew a head gasket and got some water in the oil.  He talked to
>several shops 
>>(both dealers and independents) and was told be every one that the GM
>V6 is not 
>>re-buildable, that he would have to replace the engine with a brand new
>one.  And 
>>no, they weren't just taking him for a ride.  Someone here at work has
>a buddy 
>>that's service manager with a local dealer who confirmed that they
>don't rebuild 
>>them.  Leave it to GM to design a throw-away engine.
>
>I think your friend and coworker have misinformed you, or have been
>misinformed themselves.  I just called a local Chevy service department
>and spoke with the manager, and also rang up an independent mechanic I
>know - both of whom said that all GM V-6 engines are very rebuildable
>unless the block is damaged beyond repair.  The Chevy guy said that your
>buddy probably got it backward: there are some GM V-6 engines that you
>can no longer get *new* - you must either rebuild them or replace them
>with a different engine.

There are a number of known weaknesses with the GM 2.8l V6.  
Among them are the head gasket, the flimsy bottom end
and the small oil passages.  These usually make repairs quite
expensive.  There is a "drop-in" upgrade to the 2.8l that addresses
these problems as well as boosts power (I think it's the 3.1l)

In any case, if I'm correct all this helps to confirm my suspicion
that Detroit is incapable of producing a decent engine less than 
3 litres in displacement.

>My favorite GM feature:  The 4.3L V-6 engine.  I just sold my '88 S-10
>Blazer with 161,000 miles on it, the engine still running like clockwork
>with no leaking or smoking - and never having needed a single internal
>engine repair.  How many of us can say the same for our Alfas?


The 4.3l is a different matter altogether.  If I recall correctly,
this is a 350cid motor with 2 cylinders lopped off.  If there is one
thing that Detroit knows how to do, it's durable V8 engines
larger than 4 litres.

>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:46:02 PST
>From: Simon Favre <favres@engmail.ulinear.com>
>Subject: Re: Stupid GM Features (was GM hates Italian Cars)
>
>
>I believe the original Mazda rotary was considered "disposable" as well.
>
>Perhaps this is more a matter of economics than style.  Perhaps they got
>the engine production cost down so low that rebuilding one would be more
>expensive than simply replacing it and recycling the used metal.  This
>makes the engine a "commodity" to be simply replaced.  It saves them the
>expense of having tons of parts out in the field, and the expense of
>training service techs to rebuild them in the field.  When one dies,
>they just pop in a "crate" motor.  Have you checked shop labor rates
>lately?  This means the cost of rebuilding one crossed over the cost of
>replacing it with a new one.  To an Alfa owner, the engine is anything
>but a commodity.  It's a work of art.  Rebuilding is always an option.

I think Simon has it closer to the truth.  GM 2.8l "crate" motors
cost $1100 new.  This engine was used in quite a few cars
and trucks (even the early Isuzu Troopers had them).

In any case, having parts that of your car that you normally rebuild
classified as disposible is an interesting concept.  It's something
I've come across since buying my Bug 3 weeks ago (it takes less than
10 minutes to drive into the garage, R+R a Bug engine and drive out)

-Dennis
San Diego, CA
'70 Volkswagen Beetle, green
'85 Nissan Pickup 4x4, white
'85 Alfa Romeo  GTV-6, white